-35
Joe Biden's chances of winning election plummet after debate
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
-35 points (33.6% liked)
News
21678 readers
3010 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Republicans will vote Republican no matter what.
Dem voters have always needed a candidate they like and/or agree with to turnout en mass and get the Dem elected.
It makes zero sense to keep blaming Dem voters for having standards instead of blaming party leaders for continuingly shoving candidates we don't like down our throats.
There is zero reason to keep pushing unpopular candidates.
But because we all held our noses for Biden 4 years ago, he got to nominate DNC leadership and he picked idiots who say Biden is our only shot.
Holding our noses and voting for a candidate whose not for basic parts of the party platform, just moves the party platform and makes it even harder to get votes the next election.
"Party leaders" did not shove Biden down our throats. Unless you're arguing that the party leaders of the dems are all the suburban soccer moms of the countries, and their consistency at voting. Then yes, that's true.
The party literally refused to hold any primary debates, or even primary elections in several states. They gave people no chance to even consider other candates.
And why? Because Dean Philips was doing so strongly, garnering appeal from progressives with his centrist positions?
If you want strong candidates, they need to run. If nobody good runs, then I think we've found the problem.
And I keep asking the people who say things like this who they canvassed for and they get defensive and don't give me an answer. Much like when I ask the Never-Bidens who I should vote for instead that has a chance of winning.
How can we know there were no strong candidates, when they don't get a real chance to run? They (and to be fair, most) simply assumed the incumbent was the best, because that's the way its been forever.
Polling, usually. Otherwise primary results. Most states did have their primary, btw, only a handful cancelled. Each state has their own way of doing it.
Can you name a candidate that was doing well at any point? Better than low single-digits? Dean was the only one I heard much about.
edit: You do remember the write-in uncommitted thing, right? Those were primaries.
The early primary states were specifically changed to states where Bidens poll numbers were strongest. And yes, the early primary winners carry that momentum into states where they might be less popular. They didn't have to change the primary order, but chose to, to help Biden.
That's funny, I remember Iowa and NH going first like they do every year.
Who said first?
Okay then, next was SC and Nevada. How far do we have to go before we see these changes? And who was the contender that was hurt by the changes?
Here's all the changes.
Literally anyone could've been a contender. We don't know who they are, because the party never wanted to seriously entertain anyone other than Biden.
Contrast that with what the Republicans did. They had several debates with anyone who felt like giving it a shot. Trump decided he didn't need participate, and was right. The Democrats could have done similar but refused to.
Biden is too elderly. Trump is too many kinds of wrong. Most people know this. If the Democratic party figures out that Biden is almost the only candates weaker than trump, they'll be able to win.
So, that's pretty much the same order as always, not seeing how that helps anyone.
And you can look up who runs if you want. You do not need to see debates to figure it out, someone announces after they file their paperwork, then its up to them to convince people to support them. You're pretending like the DNC needs to do all this work to serve us up a platter of great options, but ignoring that it's the candidates that determine how they get received. Don't forget, most Americans still hate the idea of communism, too, even if they don't actually know what it is.
This conspiracy theory nonsense is getting tiresome. The real world isn't that simple.
That's a very capitalistic form of democracy. Candates need to pull themselves up by their boot straps.
While the Republicans promote socialistic politics, giving candates universal basic airtime.
I get it now.
I'd say both the parties are pretty capitalist. The repubs were interested in finding their challenger, they didn't know who it would be yet. The dems, all the way down to the majority of voters, were interested in supporting their incumbent, not interested in a chaotic primary fight.
I think that's still largely the case.